Partly allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Gunde Srinu

DRT18 Jun 2025OA/610/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal-II disposed of Original Application No.610/2024 filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank to recover Rs.22,30,970.79 plus interest from three defendants who offered no defense. The Tribunal allowed the application, declaring the defendants jointly liable and validating recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.22,30,970.79 with future interest @10.45% p.a.; validated recovery from hypothecated vehicle and defendant properties; awarded costs and issued Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Gunde Srinu — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M,A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 610 OF 2024

¶6

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Having its Office at 3d Floor, Jewel Pawani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr.Gunde Srinu, S/o.Gunde Ramulu,

¶10

H.No.2-16, Arempula, Khammam, Rural Mandalam, Khammam,

¶11

Telangana - 507163.

¶12

l4s. Gunde Swarupa,

¶13

D/o. Mr, Pillagunlla Sanjuvva,

¶14

H.No.2-16, Arempula, Khammam, Rural Mandalam, Khammam,

¶15

Telangana - 507163.

¶16

Mr. Naraboyina Ramu,

¶17

S/o.Rammurthi Naraboyina,

¶18

H.No.1-27, Barugudem,

¶19

Khammam Main Road, Telangana-507163.

¶20

...Defendants

¶21

: lY/s. N. B. Sudarshan Counsel for the Appllcant

¶22

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶23

:: (LLLEL ::

¶24

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.22,3 O,97O.79ps as on 23.08.2024 from the '/ 7fltty-.z^utv-rr"'

¶25

oA.NO.510/2024

¶26

defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @1Bo/o^p.a. from the date of application till the ciate of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶27

Summons served on Dl to 3. They were set ex-parte on 07.03.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶28

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek.P.S, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 05 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶29

Ld, Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Application No.610/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank.a sum of Nove

¶35

oA.NO.610/2024

¶36

Rs.22,30,970.79ps as on 23,08.2024 with future interest @10.45olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶37

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶38

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and^properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶39

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶40

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th Day ofJune,2025).

¶43

,'AP-.,o'tuf J/^-$:"- (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Gunde Srinu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mr. Gunde Srinu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yes Bank versus Orsu Alluraiah

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Gorijala Pavan Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Naga SHiva Agencies

M/S. Canara Bank versus Mr. Vantaala Lokanatha Reddy

m/s. Canara Bank versus Mr. Gorakati Kodameeda Rayudu

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Shree Krishna Roadways